THE CURRENT EWP PROGRAMThe National EWP Manual documents NRCS policy governing the EWP Program; the...

Chapter 2THE CURRENT EWP PROGRAM

Current Management

About the NEPA Regulations, 46 FR 18026

—Alternatives to the proposed action…shall…include…no action. 40 CFR 1502.14. [In] updating a land management plan, where ongoing programs initiated under existing legislation and regulations will continue even as new plans are developed…"no action" is "no change" from current management direction or level of management intensity. CEQ Memorandum: Questions and Answers

This chapter summarizes the current EWP Program objectives and constraints, including the types and eligibility of authorized work, coordination with the programs and oversight functions

of other agencies, engineering quality assurance, and funding. It describes the current procedures used to implement an EWP project in a state in the aftermath of a natural disaster, the different restoration practices currently used to address watershed impairments, and the use of floodplain easements. The EWP Program described here comprises the set of Program activities that constitute the action baseline. [Note: The description of the current EWP Program presented in this chapter is representative of the EWP Program at the time of the publication of the Draft EWP PEIS. Any changes or modifications to the EWP Program since that date are discussed under the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 3 of this Final PEIS.] The environmental impacts of this action baseline are compared with the impacts of the EWP Program Preferred Alternative as well as the Draft Proposed Action and Alternative 3 in Chapter 3.

ROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS2.1 EWP PThe Emergency Watershed Protection Program was established by Congress to respond to emergencies resulting from natural disasters. The USDA NRCS administers the EWP Program, providing technical and financial assistance to local sponsors who request aid to relieve imminent hazards to life and property caused by floods, fires, windstorms, and other natural occurrences.

EWP Program work includes removing debris from stream channels, road culverts, and bridges, reshaping and protecting eroded streambanks, repairing levees and flood control structures, and seeding or planting damaged upland areas. All EWP Program work is designed exclusively to reduce threats to life and property while being economically and environmentally defensible and technically sound. EWP Program work is not limited to any one set of prescribed practices. NRCS conducts case-by-case investigations of the needed work, considers various alternatives for alleviating the problem, and recommends a course of action.

Tribal organization: Any IndianIndividuals are not eligible for EWP Program assistance (with tribe or tribal organization, as the exception of floodplain easements) unless represented by a defined in section 4 of the Indian project sponsor (e.g., a State government or a political Self-Determination and Educational

subdivision of a state, such as a city, county, tribal Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b),

organization, general improvement district, or a conservation having authority under Federal, State, or Indian tribal law to carry district). Under current provisions, the EWP recovery work out and maintain any EWP recovery

can be done through either Federal or local contracts. NRCS work installed.

December 2004 Page 2-1

EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

may bear up to 80 percent of the construction cost of the emergency practices (up to 100 percent for exigency); the remaining 20 percent must come from local sponsors and can be in the form of cash, in-kind services, or both. Sponsors are responsible for securing the land rights, obtaining necessary permits to make repairs, furnishing the local cost share, and operating and maintaining the finished work.

The National EWP Manual documents NRCS policy governing the EWP Program; the National EWP Program Handbook covers field procedures. Installed practices must be implemented in accordance with the Field Office Technical Guide and the National Engineering Manual 210-501.24 (c). Currently, NRCS follows EWP Program guidance (309-V National Watershed Manual, Part 509) issued in December 1992, based on legislative authorities in effect at that time.

2.1.1 EWP Coordination with Other Agencies

The EWP Program is one of a number of Federal and State programs dealing with emergency assistance. It has been characterized in public comments as one of the most responsive to local needs in small, rural watersheds. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the principal Federal agencies that NRCS coordinates with on disaster emergency recovery work. The NRCS must also coordinate and consult with federally recognized tribal governments, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and State government agencies, including State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), regarding appropriate treatment of historic and cultural resources. A number of other Federal, State, and local agencies administer programs that deal with natural emergencies as well; they are described in Appendix A.

2.1.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Under Public Law 84-99, as amended, the USACE may provide emergency assistance for flood response and post-flood response activities to save lives and protect improved property (i.e., public facilities or services and residential or commercial developments) during or following a flood or coastal storm. The USACE is not permitted to assist individual homeowners, agricultural lands, or businesses.

USACE assistance must be requested immediately and is limited to major flood or coastal storm disasters resulting in life-threatening or property-damaging situations. NRCS does not participate in flood-fighting efforts, but it coordinates with the USACE in Presidentially declared disaster situations when requested for post-flood damage repair and restoration. NRCS and USACE often coordinate in the repair of damaged levees and provide related rehabilitation assistance.

The USACE provides assistance that includes:

¾ Furnishing technical advice and assistance

December 2004 -2


¾ Clearing drainage channels, bridge openings, or structures blocked by debris ¾ Clearing blockages of critical water supply intakes and sewer outfalls ¾ Removing debris to reopen vital transportation routes ¾ Temporarily restoring critical public services or facilities ¾ Identifying hazard-mitigation opportunities ¾ Temporarily raising the height of levees with sandbags ¾ Strengthening flood control works with armor rock.

The USACE also may rehabilitate publicly sponsored flood control structures and Federally authorized and constructed hurricane and shore protective structures damaged or destroyed by wind, wave, or water action of other than an ordinary nature. Such assistance means repairing or restoring a flood-control structure to pre-disaster condition.

The criteria for USACE flood-control structure rehabilitation assistance include:

¾ Requests for rehabilitation assistance must be for a publicly sponsored project ¾ Costs for rehabilitation projects for non-Federal flood control works will be shared at 80

percent Federal and 20 percent from the public sponsor ¾ The proposed rehabilitation project must have a favorable benefit-cost ratio ¾ Deficient or deferred project maintenance that remains to be done when the disaster damage

occurs will be accomplished by or at the expense of the sponsor, before or concurrent with authorized rehabilitation assistance

¾ Federally constructed projects are repaired at 100 percent of the Federal cost.

The Clean Water Act of 1996 grants USACE the authority and responsibility for issuing permits for projects that could affect navigable waters of the United States. Under the Clean Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1344, Section 404 prohibits the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States without a permit from the USACE. The most important permitting authority from the standpoint of EWP Program activities is Nationwide 37 permit, which authorizes EWP activities when there is an immediate threat to life or property.

2.1.1.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

At the discretion of Congress and the Federal Government, states and their political subdivisions are jointly responsible for providing a system of emergency preparedness for the protection of life and property in the United States from hazards. The Federal Government provides oversight, coordination, guidance, and assistance, so that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for all hazards (42 U.S.C. § 5195). These programs are overseen and coordinated by FEMA, which has been managing Federal disaster efforts since its formation in 1979. FEMA’s mission is to reduce loss of life and property and protect the nation's critical infrastructure from all hazards through a comprehensive, risk-based, emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The Small Business Administration and USDA’s Rural Development Administration also have flood-related disaster-assistance programs.

Before FEMA can become involved, the President must declare an area a major disaster area



under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121 et seq.). Under presidential declarations, FEMA coordinates emergency assistance and NRCS responds to this assistance. If FEMA transfers this responsibility to the Federal Regional Council during the recovery period, NRCS responds to the Council.

In Presidentially declared disasters, FEMA looks to NRCS to do the following:

¾ All agricultural work normally covered by the EWP Program ¾ Major scour and overwash acreages ¾ Repair of agricultural levees (usually those less than 6 feet high) ¾ Protection of rural roads, buildings, and homes ¾ Conduct of some of the above in smaller urban areas ¾ Adhere to National Flood Insurance Program requirements in federally mapped floodplains,

especially concerning debris removal and disposal.

2.1.1.3 USDA Forest Service (USFS)

NRCS provides overall administrative direction and guidance for the EWP Program and transfers funds to the USFS at the national level for work done by USFS or its cooperators. [Note: As of the date of publication of the Draft EWP PEIS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was in place between NRCS and USFS indicating that NRCS would fund EWP Program work conducted on USFS lands. That MOU expired in July 2003, and no other agreement between the NRCS and USFS has since been signed. Currently, the USFS does not go through NRCS to fund watershed projects, including EWP Program work. NRCS currently funds only its own EWP Program work, and will continue to do so in the future. However, NRCS still provides overall administrative direction and guidance to the USFS for EWP Program work.]

Under general program criteria and procedures established by NRCS, USFS is responsible for administering EWP Program practices on national forests and national grasslands. USFS also is responsible for emergency practices on all forested lands or rangelands within the national forests, on adjacent rangelands administered under formal agreement with USFS, and on other forested lands. The Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) Program is administered by the USFS to treat critical wildfire-damaged areas and to reduce the risk that rainstorms will trigger major soil loss in runoff and downstream sedimentation in affected watersheds. In carrying out their responsibilities, USFS and NRCS work cooperatively with other Federal, State, and local government agencies (7 CFR 624.4).

2.1.1.4 USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA)

The FSA administers the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), which shares with agricultural producers the cost of rehabilitating eligible farmlands damaged by designated natural disasters. ECP also may be available to areas without regard to a presidential or secretarial emergency disaster designation. FSA declares drought emergencies under P.L. 95-334 Sec. 624.5.



County FSA committees determine the eligibility of projects for ECP assistance by conducting individual on-site inspections and determining the type and extent of damage. Cost-share assistance of 75 percent (up to 90 percent for limited resource producers) is available. NRCS provides technical assistance for ECP. To be eligible for ECP assistance, the applicant must have suffered a natural disaster that created new conservation problems that, if left untreated, would:

¾ Impair or endanger the land; ¾ Materially affect the land’s productive capacity; ¾ Represent unusual damage which, except for wind erosion, is not the type likely to recur

frequently in the same area; or ¾ Be so costly to repair that Federal assistance is or will be required to return the land to

productive agricultural use.

ECP funds may be used for debris removal, fence restoration, grading and shaping of farmland, restoring structures, and water conservation practices, including providing water to livestock in periods of severe drought. Other emergency conservation practices may be authorized by county FSA committees with the approval of the State committee and the agency’s deputy administrator for farm programs. Conservation problems that existed before the natural disaster are not eligible.

The FSA State Executive Director implements ECP except in severe drought when the deputy administrator for farm programs may authorize assistance. During severe drought, ECP provides emergency water assistance—both for livestock and for existing irrigation systems for orchards and vineyards.

2.1.1.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA enforces requirements of the Clean Water Act, (42 U.S.C. § 1252 et seq.). The Clean Water Act is the common name for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended over the years, particularly in 1972 and 1977. The Act’s goal is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, and establish a broad framework of planning, research, financial assistance, and permit systems to achieve that goal. The following are four of the most relevant sections of the act for this study:

Section 303, 42 U.S.C. § 1313 delegates the process of setting water quality standards to the states, provides for the development of basin plans for establishing these standards, defines critical water quality conditions, and provides waste load constraints.

Section 319, 42 U.S.C. § 1329 establishes nonpoint source pollution control programs. States are required to identify waters that cannot maintain applicable water quality standards without nonpoint source pollution control and to develop programs to control those nonpoint sources.

Section 401, 42 U.S.C. § 1342 requires states to certify that any discharge to waters of the United States requiring a Federal permit will comply with all water quality standards and effluent limitations.



Section 402, 42 U.S.C. § 1342 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system for point-source discharges into waters of the United States. EPA oversees the program, but it is administered in most cases by the individual states. Point sources relate to defined sources of discharge, such as pipes, but a 1987 amendment to the act also covers storm water runoff from industrial sites, municipal storm water runoff, and runoff from certain types of construction sites.

2.1.1.6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The USFWS is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. While the agency has no direct involvement with disaster relief, NRCS does consult with USFWS prior to beginning EWP work to ensure that no threatened and endangered (T&E) species will be adversely affected by the repairs, as required by the Endangered Species Act. Additionally, USFWS provides assistance in identifying environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands or fish habitat, to minimize impacts of the repairs.

2.1.1.7 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)

The NMFS is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NMFS administers NOAA’s programs which support the domestic and international conservation and management of living marine resources. NMFS is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act for listed marine species and is consulted by NRCS in cases where marine species or habitats may be affected.

2.1.1.8 State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs and THPOs)

In accordance with Section 800.2 of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) Procedures for the Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the NRCS shall consult with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and other identified consulting parties (including representatives of local government, applicants for Federal assistance, and others identified during the scoping process) regarding professionally informed findings and determinations made during the 106 process. These findings and determinations include the presence or absence of cultural resources and the potential of a proposed undertaking on identified or yet-to-be identified cultural resources. NRCS shall enter into consultation with professional opinions already formulated in accordance with 800.2 (a)(1)-(3) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 112((a)(1)(A)--professional standards) and Subpart B of the ACHP Procedures. Thus it is the responsibility of NRCS to identify “undertakings” and determine the “potential to cause effect” prior to initiating appropriate consultation.



2.1.2 EWP Program Engineering

Trained and experienced personnel are the foundation of technical quality in NRCS conservation engineering work. NRCS assigns job approval authority at the highest appropriate level to ensure the competence of each individual who provides engineering technical assistance under NRCS supervision. The NRCS State Conservation Engineer, a registered professional engineer, is the authority for all engineering work conducted in each state and delegates this authority to others who have the necessary training, experience, and demonstrated competence. The upper limits of job approval authority are measured by complexity, size, or hazard for each practice that an individual may design or plan. Many conservation practices, including those installed under the EWP Program, are approved by someone with appropriate job approval authority.

State or national NRCS practice standards, or State standards developed or adapted for EWP Program work, offer criteria specific to the design of EWP Program practices. While NRCS directives and standard professional references provide guidance for designing engineering practices, NRCS directives include the National Engineering Handbook and National Engineering Field Handbook (EFH). Chapter 16 of the EFH, “Streambank and Shoreline Protection”, is a good reference for EWP Program work. The recently issued interagency document, “Stream Corridor Restoration, Principles, Processes and Practices,” provides background useful in integrating knowledge of the principles of natural stream dynamics, ecological principles, and engineering skill to develop EWP Program alternatives that are environmentally, socially, and economically defensible and technically sound.

Some states have prepared State EWP Program handbooks containing standards, construction specifications, drawings, and other applicable materials. These help train new personnel and expedite the preparation of the site-specific construction documents necessary for contracting EWP Program work.

2.1.3 Program Funding

The early EWP Program implemented under the Flood Control Act of 1950 had a base funding of $300,000 per year for emergency practices. Disasters were not predictable; therefore, this was simply an estimate of potential needs. In a year without extensive disaster damage, the funds were available for regular flood prevention work, while in other years, extensive or large-scale disasters resulted in the need for supplemental appropriations. By 1969, all EWP Program work was funded through supplemental appropriations. In that year, $4 million was appropriated for forest fires in California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In 1973, $36.5 million was appropriated to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Agnes and flooding in the Mississippi River Valley, the Black Hills of South Dakota, and adjacent areas.

Total financial assistance allocated by state for EWP Program activities from 1988 to 2003 are shown in Fig. 2.1-1 (in millions of dollars). [Note: The dollar amounts presented in Fig. 2.2-1 do not include technical assistance]. At present, the EWP Program budget remains zero-based and allocations are made on a year-to-year basis according to need through requests for supplemental appropriations.



*Rhode Island’s financial assistance totaled $38,006 Source: NRCS, 2004

Fig. 2.1-1. Total Financial Assistance for EWP Program Work (bottom number, in millions)and Number of Disaster Events (top number) by State (1988-2003)

The EWP Program regulations on administration, eligible emergencies, recipients, assistance, eligible practices, limitations on use of emergency funds, environment, application, and investigation and request for funds, are in 7 CFR 624.

ROJECT ADMINISTRATION OORDINATION, AND EXECUTION

2.2 EWP P , C

2.2.1 EWP Project Implementation Criteria

A watershed emergency exists when a single natural occurrence or a short-term combination of occurrences suddenly impairs a watershed (see text box), creating an imminent threat to life or property. Natural occurrences include, but are not limited to, floods, fires, windstorms, earthquakes, volcanic actions, and drought. State Conservationists declare such watershed emergencies. Presidentially declared disasters may or may not coincide with the State Conservationist-declared disaster emergencies, depending on the nature and location of the disaster, the types of damage left in the aftermath, and the communities affected. Watershed impairments resulting from long-term combinations or series of natural or other occurrences are not considered sudden watershed impairments (7 CFR 624.5).



2.2.1.1 Eligibility Requirements

Emergency watershed protection assistance is available if the State Conservationist determines that:

¾ The EWP Program work would reduce threats to life and property. ¾ The imminent threat to life or property significantly exceeds that which existed before the

impairment. ¾ The work would be economically and environmentally defensible, and sound from an

engineering standpoint. ¾ The work would represent the least-cost alternative. ¾ The work would yield benefits to more than one person, except in exigency situations. ¾ Public and private landowners would be eligible for assistance, and they are represented by a

sponsor (except in the case of floodplain easements, for which sponsors are not required). ¾ The sponsor is a public agency of State, county, or city government, a government special

district, or a tribal organization (NRCS, 1999c). What constitutes a "sudden impairment" under the program was defined by virtue of a 1978 EWP Program work is not limited to any one set of legal challenge in Sierra Club v Bergland, 451 F

prescribed practices. The NRCS investigates the Supp. 120 (N.D. Miss., 1978). The court held needed work case by case to determine the that the decision to proceed with a proposed

appropriate practice(s) for each case. channel improvement of a section of the Tippah River Watershed, which was to be funded through appropriations under Section 216 of the

2.2.1.2 Eligibility Policy Constraints Flood Control Act of 1950, was inconsistent with applicable law governing expenditure of such funds. The evidence demonstrated that the

Statutory authorities allow funding only for activities sedimentation that triggered the need for the required to relieve imminent hazards to life and improvement was the gradual result of an earlier

channelization project and not caused byproperty caused by natural disasters. EWP Program flooding or other natural force, which would regulations (7 CFR 624.7) prohibit funds from being justify expenditure of Section 216 funds as an

used to install practices that are not essential to emergency measure. reduce hazards, nor can they be used to solve problems that existed before the disaster. EWP Program funds cannot be used to improve the level of protection above that which existed before the disaster, unless required by current technical standards or required by Federal, State, or local regulating agencies. In addition, the EWP Program cannot fund Operation and Maintenance (O&M) work, repair, rebuild, or maintain private or public transportation facilities or utilities. EWP Program work also cannot be done if it would affect downstream water rights, nor can repair work be performed on practices installed by another Federal agency. EWP funds can, however, be used to perform work on practices installed by a State or local agency (63 FR 45691).

2.2.1.3 Exigency and Non-Exigency Classification

Procedures for providing emergency assistance differ based upon whether the watershed emergency is an exigency or a non-exigency situation. An exigency exists when the near-term probability of



damage to life or property is high enough to demand immediate Federal action. An exigency continues to exist as long as the probability of damage continues at a high enough level.

A non-exigency situation exists when the near-term probability of damage to life or property is high enough to constitute an emergency, but not sufficiently high to be considered an exigency. A non-exigency situation continues to exist as long as the probability of damage remains high enough to be considered an emergency (7 CFR 624.5).

2.2.1.4 Project Sponsorship and Cost Sharing

With the exception of floodplain easement, each EWP Program project requires a sponsor who applies for assistance. A sponsor can be any legal subdivision of State or local government, including local officials of city, county, or State governments, American Indian tribes, conservation districts, and watershed authorities. The sponsors determine the priorities for emergency assistance while coordinating work with other Federal and local agencies, and provide the legal authority for repair work, obtain necessary permits, contribute funds or in-kind services, and maintain the completed emergency practices (NRCS, 1999a).

NRCS may provide up to 80 percent of the funds needed for construction costs to restore the impaired watershed sites to their condition prior to the disaster. The community or local sponsor of the work pays the remaining 20 percent, which can be provided by cash, in-kind services, or both (NRCS, 1999a). Current practice, established in 1993, is to limit construction funding to 75 percent with sponsors paying 25 percent.

2.2.2 EWP Program Project Documentation and Coordination

The principal NRCS documentation for an EWP Program project is the DSR, which initiates the process of economic, environmental, and technical review, decision-making, and contracting. Copies of correspondence with other agencies and contract packages are normally attached to the DSR (documentation includes sketches, photographs, and videos). Appendix C shows a sample DSR with pertinent correspondence.

2.2.2.1 The Damage Survey Report (DSR)

A DSR is required for each impaired site or grouping of similar sites. As the basis for EWP Program assistance on sponsor-proposed impairment sites, the DSR is the NRCS-specified format for gathering information about the damaged site, evaluating the damage to determine eligibility for assistance, reviewing the environmental and economic defensibility of a proposed solution, and documenting the basis for the decision. Completing the DSR requires an interdisciplinary approach using appropriate expertise to evaluate each site.

The DSR describes:

¾ Impairments and the threats they pose ¾ The scope, cost, and nature of the emergency work being proposed



¾ The potential economic and environmental effects of the impairment ¾ The initial engineering cost estimate.

The DSR provides:

¾ Support for obligation of funds by project or cooperative agreement(s) ¾ Information needed for program management, including fund management and tracking

progress ¾ Documentation for any review of accountability of NRCS staff that helps deliver technical

and financial assistance through the EWP program ¾ Information that can be used in coordination activities with other agencies that are involved

in disaster response and recovery ¾ Information that can be used in planning and evaluating disaster mitigation activities ¾ Documenting compliance with NEPA ¾ Documenting compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), including

consultation with the SHPO and/or THPO ¾ Documenting compliance with the Endangered Species Act, including consultation with

USFWS.

NRCS requires the DSR to be complete and accurate to ensure that these objectives are met. This ultimately ensures program integrity and consistency, program accountability and defensibility. It provides the documentation necessary in the event of appeals if assistance is denied or limited for those decisions that are appealable in accordance with 7 CFR parts 614 and 11.

The direct and indirect impacts of individual EWP Program practices are routinely documented and attached to the DSR. DSRs are on file at NRCS State offices.

2.2.2.2 Project Review and Approval in Exigency and Non-Exigency Situations

When NRCS receives an application for EWP Program assistance, the State Conservationist immediately investigates the emergency situation to determine if the EWP Program is applicable. In carrying out EWP Program work, State Conservationists take into consideration the two broad types of emergency situations: (1) an imminent situation of unusual urgency (an exigency), and (2) an emergency requiring action but of less urgency than an imminent situation (non-exigency) (7 CFR 624.5).

2.2.2.2.1 Exigency Situations

An exigency exists when prompt remedial action is provided to eliminate an imminent threat to loss of life. The State Conservationist notifies the Financial Assistance Programs Division, describes the emergency, and estimates the funds needed. If funds become available, the State Conservationist authorizes the actions necessary to remedy the emergency. The State Conservationist confirms the situation in a memorandum to the chief that explains the nature of the emergency, the location of the emergency, the kind of remedial work and funds needed, sponsors, and a description of potential damage. In these situations, the memorandum from the State Conservationist with its brief



information constitutes the request for funds. Funds must be obligated within 10 days after the memorandum has been received and all work must be completed within 30 days after the funds are obligated.

2.2.2.2.2 Non-Exigency Situations

If the situation is not exigency, but the impairment justifies emergency assistance, a non-exigency situation exists and the State Conservationist submits a request for funds to the chief within 60 days after the disaster. Funds cannot be committed until the NRCS national office provides notification that the funds are available (7 CFR 624.10). Funds must be obligated and work completed within 220 consecutive calendar days after the date of receipt of funds. In non-exigency situations, the economic rationale of the proposed practices must be submitted in appropriate detail with the request for funds. Generally, the expected value of imminent damages (amount of damages multiplied by the near-term probability of their occurrence) must exceed the cost of the proposed emergency practices. Information in the request for emergency funds to support economic defensibility of the practices must include:

¾ Number and extent of values at risk because of the watershed impairment ¾ Estimated damages to the values at risk if the threat is realized ¾ Events that must occur for the threat to be realized and the estimated probability of their

occurrence both individually and collectively ¾ Estimates of the nature, extent, and cost of emergency practices needed to relieve the threat.

The State Conservationist also submits adequate information to substantiate the environmental defensibility of the proposed emergency practices. Such information must include:

¾ Thorough descriptions of beneficial and adverse effects on environmental resources, including fish and wildlife habitat, cultural resources, and recreational resources

¾ Descriptions of the impact on water quality and water conservation as appropriate ¾ Analysis of the effects on downstream water rights.

A proposed EWP Program action is justifiable if the combined economic and environmental benefits exceed any adverse effects. This determination, made by the interdisciplinary team members, is documented in the comments section of the DSR. The description of the affected property (i.e., public, private, business, and other), value of repair or replacement cost, damage factor, and near-term damage reduction is documented and entered on the Economic Evaluation Worksheet for the alternative practices.

NRCS regulations (7 CFR 624.6b) and policy (National Watershed Manual 1992) require that practices proposed for installation are economically and environmentally defensible.

2.2.2.3 Environmental Review and Inter-Agency Coordination

NRCS coordinates its work with Federal agencies (USACE, USFWS, USFS, EPA, FEMA), State agencies (e.g. State emergency management agencies and State historic preservation



offices), tribal governments, and local communities. At issue are important regulatory and environmental requirements, such as protecting Federal endangered or threatened species and preserving unique cultural and historic resources.

An environmental evaluation is conducted in both exigency and non-exigency situations. In exigency situations, the assessment and any necessary mitigation are often performed after the emergency work either has been initiated or completed. NRCS State Conservationists notify concerned field offices of the USFWS, NMFS, USACE, and EPA of anticipated EWP Program work. Through existing coordination mechanisms of State clearinghouses, State Conservationists notify the State fish and game agency and other appropriate agencies. Archeological, historical, or other needed special expertise is solicited from appropriate agencies and groups, while environmental and other considerations are integrated into emergency work by using an interagency and interdisciplinary planning approach. In particular, NRCS coordinates with the USFWS and the NMFS to ensure that federally listed T&E species are not jeopardized by project activities and to ensure proper coordination under the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. The NRCS State Office, during the course of scoping and Initiation of the Section 106 Process (36 CFR Part 800.3), shall recommend appropriate consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, federally recognized Tribes (including non-resident tribes with historic interests in the project area), and others regarding the potential effects of the proposed actions on historic and cultural properties and ensure that cultural resources, including National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or eligible resources are taken into account in the planning and implementation of the EWP Program projects. NRCS is legally responsible for ensuring that NRHP-listed and eligible historic properties (including cultural resources of importance to federally recognized American Indian tribes) are taken into account during the planning process and are not inadvertently affected by projects or programs under its control. THPOs and federally recognized tribes must be consulted on a nation-to-nation basis that respect their sovereign nation status in accordance with Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites), and the NHPA. State fish and game agencies are also consulted to ensure that State-listed species are included in the planning process.

EWP Program work also is reviewed regarding the requirements of Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 3 CFR 117 (1978), as amended by Executive Order 12148, 3 CFR 412 (1980), and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 3 CFR 121 (1978), as amended by Executive Order 12608, 52 FR 34617. Executive Order 11988 requires that all Federal agencies take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains, and minimize the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare. Executive Order 11990 requires Federal agencies to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures with public input before proposing new construction in wetlands.

This PEIS hereby incorporates by reference the latest listing of threatened and endangered species, as published in 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12.



2.2.3 Related Watershed Programs

Watersheds are becoming recognized as logical environmental management entities by a number of Federal agencies, including other NRCS programs. A number of Federal, State, and local programs relate to watersheds. Most are federally funded and use significant Federal technical assistance. The major Federal agencies involved in watershed-related programs are: NRCS, the USFS, which administers the EWP Program on national forest lands, and other Federal agencies (such as the FSA, EPA, USFWS, the National Park Service, the USACE, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Bureau of Reclamation). A number of other federal programs deal with watersheds. At least 16 other NRCS programs are watershed-based or have watershed components (see Appendix A, Table A.3-1-1). Other USDA programs that are watershed-based or have watershed components are listed in Appendix A, Table A.3-1-2. Other Federal agency programs are in Table A.3-1-3. State watershed programs often result from State delegation of some or all aspects of the federal programs.

ROGRAM RESTORATION PRACTICES2.3 EWP PWhen a natural disaster occurs and watershed impairments remain, NRCS takes immediate steps to evaluate the impairments and determine an appropriate course of action. Where warranted to eliminate threats to life and property, NRCS provides funding and technical assistance to install EWP practices. The practices should restore the site to pre-disaster conditions, while being economically and environmentally defensible and technically sound. The types of repair and protection practices NRCS uses to restore watersheds include practices that:

¾ Restore stream channel capacity ¾ Stabilize and protect streambanks ¾ Repair or remove damaged dams, dikes, and levees ¾ Protect structures located in floodplains ¾ Restore damaged upland areas of watersheds.

Restoring stream channel (hydraulic) capacity in general requires removing and disposing of debris composed of woody material, sediments, or larger mineral material such as cobbles or boulders. Structural practices (armoring), soil bioengineering, stream restoration, vegetative plantings, or a combination of these practices, stabilize and protect streambanks. The NRCS Engineering Field Handbook (EFH) details many of these methods aimed at streambank restoration. Streambanks may be protected indirectly by modifying stream flow away from them. Damaged water control structures that include dams, dikes, and levees either require repair practices or may need to be removed if repair is neither feasible nor cost-effective. Floodplain diversions will divert flow away from valued or sensitive structures such as water treatment plants, while sediment or debris basins trap materials up-gradient before they can reach such structures. Critical area treatment of upland portions of watersheds reduces the potential for extreme soil loss and sedimentation, mudslides, and damage to roads and structures through accelerated runoff from unprotected slopes. Critical area treatments include planting or seeding, installing upland diversions, drains and conveyances, and building sediment and debris basins.



The practices described here are those typically used in the EWP Program and analyzed in this PEIS (NRCS, 1996). This is not intended as an exhaustive list of all possible EWP practices.

2.3.1 Practices that Restore Stream Channel (Hydraulic) Capacity--Debris Removal and Channel Restoration

When a stream channel is obstructed by debris, its hydraulic capacity—the volume of water it can convey—is severely reduced. Debris accumulations (debris dams) may back the water enough to overflow streambanks, cause flooding upstream of the blockage, and deposit sediment in adjacent floodplains, leading to severe damage and threatening homes, businesses, or farming operations in these floodplains. Debris can undermine, damage, or destroy downstream structures such as bridges (Fig. 2.3-1) or culverts or threaten such damage Fig. 2.3-1 Debris Blockage of a Bridgein subsequent storms if not removed. Bridges can be washed out by the pressure of debris backup. Overflows may erode approaches to bridges and culverts. EWP Program debris-removal practices are used either when the hydraulic capacity of a channel is reduced by debris or when debris has the potential to move during subsequent storms. Removal of woody debris and removal of sediment or cobble are discussed separately here because of differences in how they affect stream channels and how they are removed and disposed.

Debris removal generally involves the following components:

¾ Create access when needed to move trucks and heavy equipment to a debris site ¾ Dewater, if needed, to allow operations in-stream ¾ Use heavy equipment to remove debris from a streambank or in-stream position

¾ Restore stream dimension, pattern and profile

¾ Establish a low-flow channel, when needed

¾ Grade, shape, and re-vegetate affected streambanks by seeding or planting

¾ Dispose of debris on or off site

Creating access may require removing riparian vegetation, excavating and bank filling, grading, and stabilization. Dewatering diverts water within a stream, resulting in dry conditions. These dry

Fig. 2.3-2 Debris Removal Using Heavy Equipment (backhoe), Bethel Road Site, Hall County, GA



conditions are needed for the completion of EWP Program practices. Using heavy equipment either from the bank (Fig. 2.3-2) or in-stream generally is the only feasible way to deal with the weight and volume of material that needs to be removed.

In establishing a low-flow channel, heavy equipment is used to excavate an impaired streambed to restore the stream’s channel on its outside bends. The low- flow channel maintains the base flow (normal stream flow during average periods of rainfall) of the stream and aids in transporting fine sediment and restoring aquatic habitats.

Grading and shaping affected streambanks may be necessary during the finishing phase of a job to create slopes with a gradient suitable for sustaining vegetative growth. Reestablishing vegetation is accomplished by hand or mechanical seeding or planting and includes plant or seed stock, mulching, and fertilizing.

Debris use or disposal involves a number of choices, and the advantages and disadvantages of each option are affected by feasibility and cost. The method selected depends on the circumstances at the disposal site and an evaluation of how disposal may affect the environment. Debris can be used for a number of purposes either on-site or off-site. Where allowed, it can be burned or buried. Burning or burying the material off-site requires heavy equipment to transport the debris to an adequate site. Hazardous materials in the debris require special consideration in its disposal and would follow all applicable State and local regulations regarding handling and disposal. Cobbles or boulders may be used to stabilize banks, although retention of cobbles on site may contribute to the debris load in future flood events. Where practical, cobbles and debris is removed from the floodplain. Cobble and gravel can restore fish habitat or modify water flow. Rootwads (tree trunks with root structure intact) and tree trunks can also be used to stabilize stream banks. The components of debris-removal depend on the location and characteristics of the debris impairment. Some components of these practices, such as creating low-flow channels and revegetating disturbed areas, are the same as or similar to the components involved in stream restoration.

Relationships between a natural disaster, the watershed impairments it may cause, the EWP practices that may be employed to repair them, and the components of those practices are illustrated in Fig 2.3-3. Development of this flow logic was one of the first steps the NRCS interdisciplinary team used in the environmental impacts analysis method outlined in Chapter 5. Appendix B presents comprehensive environmental impact flow diagrams identifying cause-effect relationships between practice components and ecosystem components for aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, and upland ecosystem, and community components for human communities.



Watershed EWP EWP Practice Components Impairments Practices Debris Removal & Channel Restoration Bank Restoration wNatural Materials

/ p

s

i

B

A

D

C

E

H

G

Fi

l

B

e

i

ite

C /

i

i /

I

C

I

J

K

C

B

D Access

e

g

E s

s

e

/

/ il

F

/

g

G

l

s

H

l

i

/ s

/

Access

l m

I

i ion

J

l/

/

r

/ r

/

I

B B

i( l

)

B

B

B

/ l

i /

n

/ l

K

r

B

Natural Disaster

Seed/PlantRevegetate

Dewater

Debris Removal

Debris Dis osal

Create Acces

Work from Bank

Work in Stream

Debris Removal & Channel

Restoration

Material Disposal

Slope Stabilization

Bank Armoring

In-Stream Flow Modif cation

Critical Area Plant ng

Diversions

In-Stream Flow

Modification

Slope Stabilization

Dam, Dike or Levee Repair

Slope Stabilization

In-Stream Fow Modification

Bury On-site

Burn on Sit

Use Material On Ste

Gather & Haul Away

Hazmat Removal

Use Material Off S

Install DrainsConveyance

Build Diversions

Grading/ Shapng

Retaining Structures

SedmentDebris Basins

Dam, Dike, or Levee Removal

Material Disposal

Create

Dewater

Revegetat

Borrow

Install Armoring

Bank Armorin

Create Acces

Dewater

Install Material

Revegetat

Obtain Natural Materials

DisposalSpo

Site Preparation

HandMechancal Seeding

Plant Native Species

Fertilizer/Additive Application

Plant Non-Native Species

Critical Area Plantin

Excavation

Filling

Grading

Vegetate

Compaction

Instal Outlet

Diversion

Clearing

Construction of Out et

Compacting

Planting /Seeding

Shapng

Clean Out Disposal

SedimentDebris Basin

Stabilize Borrow Areas

Seed/PlantRevegetate

Dewater

Debris Disposal

Create

Instal froBank

Install in Stream

In-Stream Flow Modif cat

Create Access

Dewater

Instal repair Spillways

Planting Seeding

Install Armo

DamDike Repai

Stabilize Borrow Areas

Earth Moving

Disposal

Natural MaterialsLive Plantings

Grade/Shape Bank

Dispose Offsite

Grade/Shape

Debris in-stream, Channel

obstructed

Upland Debris

Slide Hazard

Bank Damage

Accelerated Runoff/

Increased

Reduced Channel Capacity

Jeopardy to Structures, Dams & Dikes

Dams,Dikes, Levees Damaged

Mass Flow

Floodplain Deposition

Flow Modif cation

new channes, overwidening, out

of bank flow

DebrisMaterial Disposa

Plant ngSeeding

Slope Stabilizatio

DamDike Remova

Create Access

Dewater

Install Armo

Earth Moving

Revegetate

Disposal

Restore Channel Dimension,

Pattern, & Profile

Debris Removal

Fig 2.3-3 EWP Project Flow Chart of Watershed Impairments, Practices and Practice Components



2.3.2 Practices that Protect Streambanks Intense storm flows, caused by the heavy rains associated with hurricanes, tornados, and floods, can intensify bank erosion (Fig. 2.3-4) and remove vital bank vegetation. The vulnerability of streambanks to the damaging forces of disasters can be dramatically affected by the impact of humans in the upper portions of watershed. A greater number of impervious surfaces may increase markedly the volume of runoff, thereby increasing storm peak flows. Greater peak flow increases the stress on streambanks and causes erosion, resulting in a degradation of in-stream habitat and a reduction of water quality because of sedimentation and loss of cover.

Streambanks are stabilized and protected directly by structural practices (bank armoring such as riprap), soil bioengineering, vegetative seeding or plantings, or more often a combination of these practices, or indirectly by installing structures in-stream to deflect stream flow away from the eroding bank.

Fig. 2.3-4 Property Threatened by a Failed Streambank

2.3.2.1 Direct Streambank Protective Practices

Direct protection of streambanks involves installing materials along the damaged bank to protect it from the erosive force of the stream. Those practices include bank armoring and the use of natural woody materials and live plantings. Most often these techniques are used in combination, with armoring where normal stream flow velocities are relatively high—greater than plantings alone could resist—and particularly where high-value structures are immediately adjacent or downstream to the eroding streambank, and the probability of failure must be minimized.

2.3.2.1.1 Bank Armoring

Traditional protective practices, known as bank armoring techniques, use stone and other armored structures to provide protection. Typical armoring practices include gabions and riprap.

Gabions are large-volume wire-mesh baskets (Fig. 2.3-5) filled with stone or cobble and placed along streambanks and streambeds of smaller streams for stabilization and grade control. Gabions are flexible and can be shaped to conform to topographical features such as

Fig. 2.3-5. Gabions Installed at Rocky Run, VA



Fig. 2.3-6 Riprap Installed at Rocky Run, VA

sharp bends and steep streambanks. They usually are wired together with durable fasteners, making them structurally sound and long-lasting.

Riprap (Fig. 2.3-6) is a layer of stone placed along eroded streambanks to protect and stabilize them. Like gabions, riprap is used where stream velocities are too great to establish vegetative cover successfully. Gabion or riprap installation generally involves creating access and using heavy equipment. Dewatering is sometimes required. Typically, the upper

portion of the armored streambank is not actually armored but instead graded and shaped, then planted or seeded.

2.3.2.1.2 Natural Materials and Live Plantings

Dead woody materials, including dead trees, tree branches, and cut logs and rootwads, are used to protect banks. Soil bioengineering combines live plantings with engineered materials for reinforcement. Vegetative plantings and seeding may be used alone where stream velocities allow, but most often are used in combination with armoring or dead woody materials. The roots of live materials secure the streambank soils, making the banks far less vulnerable to erosion and providing riparian and fish habitat. Fig , VA. 2.3-7 Rootwads Installed at Rose River

Dead Woody Materials

Rootwads are embedded trunk-first in streambanks (Fig. 2.3-7) to stabilize the banks. They are a more natural, biologically functional alternative to armoring structures. Timber cribbing

structures (Fig. 2.3-8) are log installations similar to gabions in function.

Soil Bioengineering

Soil bioengineering uses living plants as structural components (NRCS, 1996). Adapted types of shrubs or trees are installed initially in configurations that offer immediate soil protection and reinforcement. A typical installation may include riprap, rock fill, or geo-textiles, or a

Fig. 2.3-8 Timber Cribbing Structure, combination of these materials with plants inserted Cherokee County, NC



through the materials into the soil (Fig. 2.3-9). Soil bioengineering systems create resistance to sliding or mass movement of a streambank as they develop roots or fibrous inclusions. Hydrophytic plants, such as willows that are quick to root and grow, are often used for these projects.

Streambank repair and protection consists of the following practice components:

¾ Create access when needed to move heavy equipment to a damaged bank site;

¾ Dewater to allow operations in-stream; ¾ Borrow materials; ¾ Operate heavy equipment from on-bank or in-stream to install protective practices; and ¾ Grade, shape, and, when appropriate, revegetate streambanks.

Fig. 2.3-9 Composite photo, live plantings in rock base (left) and soil bioengineering using geotextiles, Glen Arbor, Santa Cruz Co., CA

Fig. 2.3-10 Bank Vegetation Site, Back Creek, Augusta County, VA (with riprap toe section)

Planting and Seeding

Vegetative stabilization techniques (Fig. 2.3-10) involve choices among seeding methods and materials, nonnative or native plantings, and fertilizers and additives. Vegetative plantings are used where they are capable of protecting the bank from the erosive forces of streamflow. A common streambank stabilization detail incorporates structural protection of the bank toe from the bed elevation to the normal water surface or to the approximate 2-year flow line, with vegetative treatment of the upper bank to the general flood plain elevation or as needed.

Criteria may be developed locally to define limiting velocities where predominantly vegetative treatments can be used successfully. Many variables, including climate, soils, bank height and slope, plant species, cost, material and labor availability, and animal and human bank traffic, influence the success of vegetative treatment.

Vegetative stabilization practice components include:

¾ Create access; ¾ Fill or excavate; ¾ Grade; ¾ Harvest plant materials; and ¾ Install plants or seeds, and apply fertilizer and mulch.



2.3.2.2 In-stream Flow Modification

In-stream flow modification uses structures placed in a stream to redirect flow, thereby protecting banks from lateral erosion or to stabilize grade, thereby protecting the streambed from cutting erosion by the downward force of the flow. These techniques are used when out-of-stream practices alone cannot repair a bank stability problem, when they are the most environmentally sound solution, and when there is sufficient area for effectiveness. A rock weir, a typical in-stream structure to regulate flow, is a series of boulders placed across a channel (Fig. 2.3-11) and anchored to the streambank or streambed. Rock weirs can also direct flow away from damaged streambanks.

Rock weir installation involves:

¾ Create access; ¾ Dewater (if necessary); ¾ Use heavy equipment; and ¾ Grade, shape, and seed. Fig. 2.3-11 Rock Weir, Rose River, VA

2.3.3 Dam, Dike, and Levee Repair or Removal

The EWP Program rule prohibits repairs to NRCS-assisted dams (Fig. 2.3-12), dikes, and levees when they are damaged by a natural disaster. However, the rule also allows the NRCS Chief to grant an exception and in 1996, the Chief granted a blanket exception to this rule. EWP Program repair or removal does not apply to water-control structures maintained or owned by other Federal agencies. A dam, dike, or levee is removed when the threat of failure is high and repair is not economically or technically feasible. In some states, agricultural dikes less than six feet high or nonagricultural dikes less than ten feet high are eligible for repair or removal, depending on individual State agreements with the USACE.

Fig. 2.3-12 Emergency Spillway Damage, Switzer Dam, Dry River, VA

Dam, dike, and levee repair may consist of the following practice components:

¾ Create access, when needed, to move heavy equipment to the site;

¾ Dewater if needed to allow operation to proceed under dry conditions;

¾ Install armor to protect either the dam, dike, levee, or downstream structures;

¾ Repair spillways by fill and compaction; ¾ Grade, shape, and re-vegetate repaired

areas and borrow sites by seeding or planting.



2.3.4 Practices that Protect Structures in Floodplains

Heavy rains associated with natural disasters such as hurricanes can cause intense storm flows that carry storm water and debris downstream or into down-slope floodplains. Debris torrents can threaten life and property, especially in mountainous regions where steep gradients exist. Debris and floodwaters can reduce the capacity of stream channels, damage infrastructure, and potentially impair water quality by damaging the water supply or wastewater treatment facilities. To diminish these threats, the EWP Program installs sediment and debris basins and floodplain diversions.

2.3.4.1 Sediment and Debris Basins

Fig. 2.3-13 Eighth Street Burn, Boise Hills, ID Sediment and debris basins retain and store debris from floods when this material could threaten life and property and other control methods are deemed inadequate. Practice components involved in sediment and debris basin installation include:

¾ Create access, when needed, to move heavy equipment to the site; ¾ Excavate soil and shape the basin; ¾ Compact soils to ensure basin stability and water retention capability; ¾ Construct outlets for the release of storm water; and ¾ Grade, shape, and revegetate soils by seeding or planting.

2.3.4.2 Floodplain Diversions

Floodplain diversions are constructed when excessive runoff or debris flow threatens valuable structures in a floodplain such as water and wastewater treatment facilities. A floodplain diversion installed at a waste treatment facility that was being flooded by heavy rains in Clarendon, TX (Fig. 2.3-14) will keep the facility from overflowing. The EWP Program practice components involved in installing a diversion are:

¾ Create access, when needed, to move heavy equipment to the site;

¾ Excavate soil; ¾ Fill, when needed, and compacting

soils for stability;

Fig 2.3-14 Floodplain Diversion Site, Clarendon, TX



¾ Construct outlets to release storm water; ¾ Grade, shape, and re-vegetate affected areas by seeding or planting.

2.3.5 Practices that Protect Watershed Uplands

Natural disasters such as drought (Fig 2.3-15), fire, and flood can strip large areas of vegetation. Vegetation plays a vital role in controlling wind and water erosion, ensuring groundwater recharge, maintaining soil productivity, and providing habitat. Without adequate vegetation, soils may become susceptible to mass-flow events, which can threaten life and property. Areas that have lost vegetation often become a priority concern for communities or residents living near the impaired area. Unprotected, light soils susceptible to erosion by high winds (Fig. 2.3-15) can reduce visibility causing hazardous driving conditions and irritate eyes and respiratory systems.

Heavy rains can cause debris torrents that deposit sediment, woody debris, and other materials in floodplains.

Critical area treatment involves one or more practices to stabilize priority upland areas by increasing the vegetative cover, binding and retaining soils, helping maintain infiltration, reducing surface runoff by slowing water velocity through structures on side slopes and

Fig 2.3-15 Dust Storms Caused Traffic Accidents improved infiltration, and improving drainage near this Drought-Stricken Site at Antelope conditions to protect property. Treatments

Valley, CA that stabilize critical areas include critical area planting, installing diversions, check

dams, contour trenches, drains, conveyances, and outlet structures.

2.3.5.1 Critical Area Planting

Critical area planting involves seeding (Fig. 2.3-16) or planting areas that are prone to erosion and destabilization. It is used where vegetative cover has been lost, when erosion or sedimentation will create an imminent threat to life or property, or when conventional seeding methods are inadequate. Critical area planting uses permanent grasses and legumes to stabilize the soil and reduce damage from sediment and runoff to downstream areas. It also controls wind erosion of exposed topsoil. Critical area planting includes site preparation, hand or mechanical seeding, planting native or nonnative plants, and applying fertilizers or other additives. Preparing a site for planting (Fig. 2.3-16) involves a number of techniques to

Fig. 2.3-16 Critical Area Tilling and Seeding, Antelope Valley, CA



Fig. 2.3-17 After Critical Area Treatment Revegetated the Site, Antelope Valley, CA

help establish vegetation, including ripping and raking, which turn soil over to make it more conducive to vegetation growth (Fig. 2.3-17). This is especially important where soils are crusted or hard and do not allow seeds to penetrate the surface layer. Ripping, disking, harrowing, or raking to prepare seedbeds for planting can increase sedimentation and runoff on a short-term basis, because any vegetation that may have been present is disturbed. It is most likely, though, that these practices decrease runoff in high-gradient areas if the work is completed in a horizontal pattern across slopes (NRCS, 1999d). The terraced pattern

will slow runoff and increase infiltration.

Seeding or planting with native or non-native stock can be accomplished by aerial seeding, drilling, or hand seeding. In aerial seeding, an airplane or helicopter scatters the seeds. With drilling, a tractor-pulled drill, such as the rangeland drill, furrows a trench and plants the seeds. Chains dragged behind the drill cover the trenches and prevents the loss of seed. Drilling is often conducted to help create terraces that slow runoff and aid in the infiltration of surface water (NRCS, 1999d). Hand planting can stabilize impaired areas in settings that are not conducive to mechanical planting or seeding. Applying fertilizers, additives, or ground cover such as lime and mulch helps reestablish newly planted vegetation.

Critical area planting may consist of the following practice components:

¾ Create access, when needed, to move heavy equipment to a planting site;

¾ Prepare sites for planting; ¾ Seed with native, or nonnative grasses; ¾ Plant native, or nonnative seedlings; and ¾ Apply fertilizers or other additives.

2.3.5.2 Upland Diversions

Upland diversions (Fig. 2.3-18), which include contour felling and contour trenching, protect areas that lack vegetative cover, reducing excessive runoff, and protecting downslope communities or structures from debris-laden surface water flow. In contour felling, cut trees are placed in horizontal rows on side slopes to divert water. Contour trenching is similar, except that excavated trenches replace logs. Contour trenches are ditch-like trenches constructed on slopes with moderate-to-deep rills. Trenches

Fig. 2.3-18 Upland Diversions,8th Street Burn, Boise Hills, ID



generally are dug in parallel from the top to the bottom of the slope. Their main purpose is to store accelerated soil erosion and overland flow.

Installing upland diversions involves the following practice components:

¾ Create access, when needed, to move heavy equipment to a diversion site; ¾ Excavate to create or install the diversion; ¾ Fill to prepare the site to install the diversion; ¾ Install outlet structures (drains and conveyance); ¾ Compact soils to ensure stability; and ¾ Grade, shape, and revegetate affected areas by seeding or planting.

Installing contour trenches consists of:

¾ Creating access to move heavy equipment, if needed, to a construction site; ¾ Excavating trench to capture runoff; and ¾ Grading, shaping, and revegetating affected areas by seeding or planting.

2.3.5.3 Grade Stabilization Structures

Grade stabilization structures are small dams constructed in drainage ways and across or at the base of slopes, to reduce erosion by reducing flow velocity (Fig. 2.3-19). Grade stabilization structures are used in areas that have intermittent flows where it would be impractical to line an area with non-erodible materials. They usually are constructed of riprap, straw bales, logs, or sandbags (Smoot and Smith, 1998).

Fig. 2.3-19 Temporary Grade Stabilization

Installing grade stabilization structures Structure, 8th Street Burn, Boise Hills, ID

consists of the following practice components:

¾ Create access to move heavy equipment, if needed, to a construction site; ¾ Excavate to place grade stabilization structures in correct configuration for flow reduction; ¾ Install grade stabilization structures; and ¾ Grade, shape, and revegetate affected areas by seeding or planting.

2.3.5.4 Drains, Conveyances, and Outlet Structures

Critical area treatment may require installing practices to protect roads and structures from severe runoff. Drains, conveyances, and outlet structures conduct storm water away from roads, buildings, developed lots, and critically damaged areas and usually discharge into the nearest



stream channel. Outlet structures usually are lined with clean stone to reduce the velocity of water leaving the structure, which helps protect the areas of discharge from erosion (Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1999).

Installing drains, conveyances, and outlet structures consists of the following practice components:

¾ Create access to move heavy equipment to site; ¾ Install drains, conveyances, and outlet structures; ¾ Install armoring; and ¾ Grade, shape, and revegetate affected areas by seeding or planting.

2.3.5.5 Slope Stabilization

Slope stabilization involves a combination of structural and natural techniques that are used in upland watersheds after fires, landslides, or other natural disasters to control or minimize the risk of soil movement, rockslides, and erosion.

Installing slope stabilization consists of the following EWP practice components:

¾ Create access to move heavy equipment, if needed, to a construction site; ¾ Install drains or conveyances; ¾ Build diversions; ¾ Plant or seed; and ¾ Install retaining structures.

LOODPLAIN EASEMENTS2.4 FThe Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (commonly referred to as the 1996 Farm Bill) provides the authority for NRCS to purchase floodplain easements under the EWP Program. Authorization for floodplain easements provides NRCS with an opportunity to purchase easements on flood-prone lands as an alternative to traditional eligible EWP Program practices. It is not intended to deny any party access to traditional eligible EWP Program practices. Instead, it is intended to provide a more permanent solution to repetitive disaster assistance payments and to achieve greater environmental benefits where the situation warrants and the affected landowner is willing to participate in the easement approach. Current guidance for administering the purchase of floodplain easements under the EWP Program is provided in the National Watersheds Manual (NWSM) 390–V, Circular No. 4, which supplements Part 509 of the NWSM.

Floodplain easements are intended to:

¾ Reduce the public risk of flood damages, including public risks to downstream or adjacent lands;



¾ Protect lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion; ¾ Retard soil erosion through the restoration, protection, or enhancement of the floodplain; ¾ Allow the unimpeded reach and flow of water in, over, on, or through the easement area, to

restore, reconnect, and enhance water conditions on the easement area; ¾ Eliminate future disaster payments that would otherwise be applicable to the area; ¾ Restore, protect, manage, maintain, and enhance the functions of wetlands, riparian areas,

conservation buffer strips, and other lands; ¾ Conserve natural values including fish and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement,

floodwater retention, groundwater recharge, open space, aesthetics, and environmental education.

Eligible Land: Lands potentially eligible for floodplain easement purchase include agricultural lands damaged by flooding that have been subject to repeated flood damage or are where the flooding can be expected to recur (Fig. 2.4-1). Agricultural lands are predominantly cropland (including orchards and vineyards), grazing land, hay land, or forestland adjoining the channel of a river, stream, watercourse, water body, lake, or ocean. Incidental areas adjacent to, and part of the agricultural land tract that may not meet eligibility criteria independently, may be acquired where necessary to facilitate the acquisition process (i.e., purchase of remaining uneconomic remnants of land, inclusion of lands that are required for the floodplain hydrology reconnection and restoration to occur, or lands necessary for practicable and manageable easement boundaries). The State Conservationist, in consultation with the State technical committee, will develop appropriate guidance for field-level use in determining eligibility and will be responsible for closely monitoring implementation.

Designation of Land Categories within the Floodplain Easement: Three categories of lands may be designated within a given easement area. A single floodplain easement acquisition may consist of one, two, or all three categories.

Fig 2.4-1 Aerial Photo of Washed-Out Levee and Floodplain Deposition on the Lower Missouri River



All easements require that lands, including all designated land categories within easements, and landowners must:

¾ Meet eligibility requirements ¾ Be covered by a perpetual easement ¾ Have the landowner waive the right to be protected from floodwaters and provide the United

States with the right to restore and enhance the reach and flow of waters to achieve flood flow, flood storage, erosion control, or conservation objectives (e.g., removing levees, filling ditches, or impounding surface waters)

¾ Prohibit construction or maintenance of buildings or other structures ¾ Waive future disaster assistance that may be applicable to easement lands ¾ Reserve to the landowner the right to control ingress and egress and the rights to hunting,

fishing, and undeveloped recreational activity (e.g., either personal use or commercial leasing)

¾ Provide the landowner with the opportunity to participate in easement restoration and management activities that the United States acquires through the easement.

Category 1 Criteria include:

¾ All vegetative buffer areas being restored, established, enhanced or otherwise protected adjacent to a river, stream, watercourse, water body, lake or ocean including distinct drainage and flowage areas (required width to be determined by State Conservationist in response to site-specific natural resource needs)

¾ Habitats of present or potential future importance in the protected, restored, or enhanced condition to State or Federal at-risk species

¾ Other landscape situations determined by the State Conservationist to warrant Category 1 application (e.g., old-growth cypress stands or unusually severe erosion problem areas)

The easement area in this category is restored and enhanced to the extent practicable to optimize floodplain functions and fish and wildlife habitat values. This easement prohibits uses such as cropping, grazing, or timber harvest.

For the easement land payment, landowners are compensated the least of the following three values: 100 percent of the agricultural or other undeveloped or raw land value of the land (assuming a post-disaster restored condition); the geographic rate cap where one is established; or the landowner offer. EWP Program funds may cover up to 100 percent of the cost of land treatment practices and all administrative, survey, appraisal, title insurance, and other costs associated with establishing the easement.

Category 2 Criteria include:

¾ Eligible floodplain lands that are, or will in the future, be considered as high risk because they will be subject to frequent flooding



¾ Lands where the type and importance of the habitat, at present or in the restored or enhanced condition, has been determined or is projected to become important to fish and wildlife species of Federal importance (e.g., anadromous fish or migratory birds).

Landowners may request compatible uses including, but not limited to, managed timber harvest, periodic haying, or grazing. To be approved as a compatible use, the activity must be consistent with long-term protection and enhancement of the flood control, erosion control, and conservation purposes for which the easement was established. NRCS makes the final decision concerning the amount, method, timing, intensity, and duration of any compatible use that may be authorized. Cropping will not be authorized as a compatible use nor is haying or grazing on lands that are being returned to woody vegetation.

Landowners are compensated at a level corresponding to the lowest of 100 percent of: the agricultural or other undeveloped or raw value of the land (assuming a post-disaster restored state), the geographic rate cap where one is established, or the landowner’s offer.

EWP Program funds may cover up to 100 percent of cost of land treatment practices and all of the administrative, survey, appraisal, title insurance, and other costs associated with establishing the easement.

Category 3 includes only quality farmland that is subject to periodic flooding. Under this category, the landowner retains the right to control cropping, haying, grazing, or timber harvest while the United States acquires all other rights included in the easement.

Landowners are compensated 50 percent of the easement land payment amount that would be paid for the easement acres if they were being placed under Category 2.

Determining Category Boundaries: The State Conservationist is required to develop an overall floodplain easement acquisition strategy for floodplain lands whose landowners voluntarily express an interest in the easement option. The two primary components of that strategy are to determine the type and extent of practices required to restore and enhance the floodplain hydrology of potential easement lands, and to locate the boundaries of the appropriate easement land categories that are necessary to address the multiple resources of each offered easement area.

The type and extent of hydrology restoration and enhancement (e.g., restoration or enhancement of the reach and flow of water in, over, on, or through the easement area) will need to be identified before the easement offer is made to the landowner. Enough detail must be included to enable NRCS to determine the potential benefits and general costs and to ensure that the landowner understands the scope of the hydrology change that NRCS would likely implement if the easement is established. At this stage of the easement planning process, there is no intent to develop detailed and specific hydrology restoration and enhancement plans.

The State Conservationist determines the spatial arrangement of the three categories of floodplain easement lands that will be offered to the landowner within each easement. One, two, or all three



categories may be applicable to a single floodplain easement. The boundaries are established as to provide the benefits for which the floodplain easement is being acquired and are consistent with site- specific land resource needs, including the need for manageable boundaries. Surveys generally are required to establish effective category boundaries. This determination becomes the NRCS easement offer for that particular tract.

Easement Terms and Conditions: A single floodplain warranty easement deed document applies to all floodplain easement situations. NRCS prepared this document in consultation with its Office of General Council and modification of the document is not authorized.

Application Process: The floodplain easement program follows the same general application, ranking, funding allocation request, easement development, restoration plan development, contract administration, and easement management process used by the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). They use forms similar to WRP forms with modifications to reflect accurately the funding source, program name, authority, and resource management goals for the EWP Program.

Easement Administration: EWP Program floodplain easements are administered by the NRCS. NRCS may enter into partnerships with eligible local sponsors or other partners to further the purposes of the program. Title to the easement is held by the United States through the Secretary of Agriculture. NRCS is the acquiring agency but has the flexibility to delegate management, maintenance, monitoring, and enforcement responsibilities to eligible partners. Eligible partners may include Federal and State agencies. In conjunction with the delegation of responsibility, provision is made for NRCS to ensure that the terms of the easement are upheld and in the event that NRCS determines it necessary, the NRCS can terminate the delegation and have all responsibility revert to the NRCS.

Easement Plans and Files: NRCS maintains an easement plan that reflects the current management, restoration, and delegation decisions for each particular easement. The official file is kept in the State office. It includes a copy of the filed easement, the easement plan, and copies of correspondence concerning compatible use requests and agency responses. This file material is in a secure location and serves as a backup if, during the course of easement management and monitoring, one has to refer to a complete record or has to replace materials that are lost or damaged during field work. In addition, the responsible field office has a working file that can be used for reference when landowner or monitoring questions arise. The working file can be taken to the field for on-site reference.

All floodplain easements require a plan that outlines objectives, conservation treatment needs (e.g., removal of fences or buildings, establishing vegetation, realigning or removing levees, filling ditches, breaking tiles, and impounding surface water to restore or establish wetland or flood storage conditions), partnerships, long-term operation and management requirements, and status reports in response to annual monitoring efforts. If restoration, management, maintenance, monitoring, or enforcement responsibilities are delegated, they are noted in the plan and a procedure is established to ensure that the delegated activities are carried out in a manner consistent with agency responsibilities. While the intent is that all actions by NRCS following



purchase of an easement and under the terms of the plans are undertaken in cooperation with the landowner, the plans are living documents and NRCS may modify these documents within the authority provided in the easement.

Economic Justification: All conservation easements and practices must be economically, environmentally, socially, and technically defensible. The costs of restoring lands and structures, costs associated with the repeat of future disasters, and the costs of efforts that would be required to prevent a repeat of such events, are considered in the cost-efficiency analysis of the easement alternative. The easement alternative must be cost-effective in comparison with other traditional EWP practices.

Establishing Priorities: The program can be targeted to individual project sites where the benefits are associated with the individual site, or to clusters of projects in defined problem areas in general, where the combined benefits of the cluster form the basis for an eligibility determination that applies to the entire cluster. Priority consideration may be given to those sites where eligible sponsors and partners are willing to share the cost of acquisition, restoration, management, monitoring or enforcement. Special consideration is given to those situations that provide the greatest reduction in threat to life and property, cost effectiveness in achieving conservation objectives, and environmental benefits from the restoration, protection, and enhancement of conservation values. Efforts are made to extend outreach efforts to all potential participants including, but not limited to, communities with limited resources.

Disaster Assistance Payments: In no case is an owner eligible for future Federal disaster assistance on the easement land purchased with EWP Program funds. Where landowners purchased private insurance benefits under the Crop Insurance Act, they are treated as follows:

¾ Payment through the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance program for damage to crops for which insurance is not available is disaster assistance, and is not available to owners for which the easement has been purchased under the EWP Program.

¾ Benefits obtained through crop insurance programs offered under the Federal Crop Insurance Act are not considered disaster assistance and are available to owners of Category 3 land for which the easement has been purchased under the EWP Program.

Easement Payment: NRCS generally appraises the land to determine its agricultural value. For incidental lands not in active agricultural use, the appraised value is the raw land value excluding speculative commercial, industrial, or residential values. The payment offer for the easement lands is based on the agricultural value or other undeveloped or raw land value, a geographic land payment cap, or landowner offer. The least of the three potential values forms the basis of the NRCS offer.

The easement land payment amount for Category 1 and Category 2 lands is the least of the following: (1) agricultural value of the land as if restored for agricultural production or the applicable undeveloped or raw land value; (2) the geographic cap established by the State Conservationist; or (3) the landowner offer. For lands that are not used directly for cropping or other relative intense agricultural activity (e.g., woodlot, riparian stream border, or permanent



pothole wetland), the easement payment is the undeveloped or raw land value excluding any value that might be assigned for speculative residential, commercial, or industrial development. With Category 3 lands, the payment will be not more than 50 percent of the amount that would have been paid for the same area had it been under a Category 1 or Category 2 classification.

The acquisition of buildings or other surface improvements and facilities is not an integral part of the floodplain easement program. If the State Conservationist determines that the presence of such isolated farm buildings, improvements, or facilities may warrant special consideration, the Director, Easement Programs Division may consider the case.

If the State Conservationist, in consultation with Federal, State, or local officials familiar with agricultural land values in the area, determines that the landowner has made an offer clearly below even the most conservative estimate of the value of the potential easement area and cap, or the cap is clearly below the most conservative estimate of such value, no detailed evaluation to determine value is required. The basis for the determination by the State Conservationist that such a situation exists is documented and placed in the project file and the landowner offer or cap value may be considered potentially acceptable.

EWP Program funds may be used to pay up to 100 percent of the cost of installing land treatment practices deemed necessary and desirable to achieve the purposes of the easement. Such practices as fencing to exclude livestock or restoring surface hydrology, removing levees, filling ditches, and restoring natural vegetation are the type expected to be most common. The use of EWP Program funds for installing land treatment practices will be commonplace with Category 1 and Category 2 lands. In the case of Category 3 lands, such funding is largely limited to hydrology restoration and enhancement actions (e.g., removing levees, filling ditches or impounding water for flood storage or restoring or establishing wetland conditions).

There is no authority to provide EWP Program funding for implementation of land treatment practices that are associated with the landowner’s agricultural use of the easement area of Category 3 lands.

ECENT PROGRAM HISTORY2.5 RAs part of the impacts evaluation, the PEIS uses example restoration and floodplain easement sites in nine states: Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The states were chosen because they provide a range of disaster types and of terrain and climatic conditions that are representative of the range of impairment types and watershed environments the EWP Program typically addresses. Tables 2.5-1 through 2.5-9 list recent EWP Program activities in the nine states. Listed are the natural disasters and resulting watershed impairments, total EWP Program funds expended for repairs and technical assistance, and the practices installed.



Table 2.5-1 Recent EWP Program Activities in Arkansas

Location Disaster Date

1998 Arkansas EWP Work

Miller County 5/28/98

Miller County 5/28/98

Mississippi County 4/16/98

Clay County Not Stated

Columbia County Not Stated

1997 Arkansas EWP Work

Clark County 3/1/97

Clark County 3/1/97

Cross County 3/1/97

Jackson County 3/1/97

Clay County 3/1/97

Total Federal $

52,345

82,244

3,500

163,298

56,413

79,411

70,480

737.50

9,000

51,873

Disaster Type

Flood

Flood

Tornado

Not Stated

Flood

Tornado

Tornado

Tornado/Heavy Rains

Tornado/Rainfall

Heavy Rains/Flooding

Watershed Impairments

Abutments De-stabilized

Erosion Near Abutments

Endangered Structures & Roads

Abutments Destabilized

Silt Bars Blocking Channels

Roads Threatened

Debris Blockage of Major Drain System

222 Residences

22 Businesses

Loss of Utilities

Increased Threat of Flooding

Emergency Access Blocked by Debris

Not Stated

Abutments De-stabilized

Scour Near Abutments

Debris Blockages in Streams

Storm Water Drains Clogged

Day Care Center Endangered on Slope

Flooding Potential Increased

Trees and Debris Blocking Channels

Roads/Bridges/Culverts Endangered

Drainage Outlet Clogged With Debris

Drainage Channels Clogged With Debris

Increased Risk of Flood to City

Drainage Channels Blocked with Debris

Destroyed 40 Homes

Utilities Disrupted

Erosion

Sloughing

3 Homes Threatened

Bridge Threatened

EWP Program Practices

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Debris Removal

Bank Stabilization

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Debris Removal

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal



Table 2.5-2 Recent EWP Program Activities in California


Total Federal $

Disaster Type Watershed Impairments EWP Program

Practices

1997 California EWP Work

Placer County 1/1/97 291,890 Flood Failing Streambanks Streambank Stabilization

Debris Jams Threatened Bridges/Homes Debris Removal

Channels Clogged Rechannelization

Access Routes Threatened Diversions

Sediment Accumulation

Tehama County 1/1/97 752,682 Flood Increased Threat to life and Property

Repair/Restoration of Levees

Bridges/Utilities De-stabilized Streambank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Plumas 1/1/97 406,728 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

Butte 1/1/97 2,376,707 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

Trinity 1/1/97 39,238 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

Humboldt 1/1/97 174,000 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

S Luis Obis 1/1/97 31,500 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

Shasta 1/1/97 16,390 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal

Napa 1/1/97 485,461 Flood Increased Threat to Life and Property



Debris Removal



Table 2.5-2 (Continued) Recent EWP Program Activities in California


Total Federal $


Practices

3 National Forests 1/1/97 195,000 Flood Sedimentation Revegetation

Clogged Channels Debris Removal

Eroded Banks Grade Stabilization

De-stabilized Banks Stabilize Banks

Sacramento 1/1/97 3,491,778 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal

Levee Destabilization Repair/Restoration of Levees

Streambank De-stabilization Streambank Stabilization

Sutter 1/1/97 31,935 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal

Levee De-stabilization Repair/Restoration of Levees

Streambank Destabilization Streambank Stabilization

Colusa 1/1/97 187,500 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal



Santa Cruz 1/1/97 402,655 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal


Streambank De-stabilization Streambank Stabilization

Yuba 1/1/97 13,500 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal



Kern 1/1/97 64,510 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal



El Dorado 1/1/97 45,798 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal



Siskiyou 1/1/97 122,507 Flood Clogged Waterways Debris Removal





Table 2.5-2 (Continued) Recent EWP Program Activities in California

Disaster Date

Disaster EWP Program Practices


Lassen 08/96 241,558 Flood Not Stated Reservoir Construction

) 10/96 18,761 Threats of Mudslides Clearing

Diversions

Threats of Drainage Clogging

Threats of Channel Clogging

Loss of Vegetation

Baldwin WS (LA County) 10/96 6,706 Threats of Mudslides Clearing

Diversions



Loss of Vegetation Kalarama St/Aliso (Ventura County) 10/96 19,450 Threats of Mudslides Clearing

Diversions



Loss of Vegetation

1994 EWP California EWP Work

Sierra County 08/94 241,932 Flood Threat Increased

Sediment Damage Increased Clearing

Increases in Runoff and Debris

Ventura, San Bernardino, 01/94 2,486,254 Earthquake Debris Basin Construction

Santa Barbara Threat to Life and Property Streambank Stabilization

Northridge 01/94


Topanga/Malibu Fires 11/93 7,843,459 Vegetative Reduction Revegetation LA, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Restoration

Riverside and San Diego Counties


A y 10/92 173,655 Flood Streambank Erosion Streambank Protection

Buildings/Homes Threatened

Location Total Federal $ Type Watershed Impairments

City of Malibu (LA County Fire

Threats of Debris Flows

Fire


Fire


Fire Spillway Repair/Installation

Sediment and Debris Flows

Fires

Fire

rroyo Simi, Ventura Count



Table 2.5-3 Recent EWP Program Activities in Georgia

Location

1996 Georgia EWP Work

Douglas County


Effingham, Long Counties


Thomas, Grady, Dector, Mitchell, Brooks, Colquitt Counties

56 Counties Throughout State

Tobesofkee Creek Watershed

Disaster Date

Total Federal $ Disaster Type Watershed Impairments EWP Program

Practices

08/96 234,000 Flooding 30 Roads Damaged Bank Stabilization

3 Miles of Stream Destabilized Debris Removal

Debris Jams

Sediment Deposition

Flooding

Damage to Property

Damage to Utilities

Flows Redirected Out of Banks

08/95 1,026,455 Flooding Tropical Debris/Sediment Accumulation Bank Stabilization

Depression Jerry Roads Washed Out Debris Removal

Hurricane Opal Culverts/Roads Unsafe

Hazardous Driving Conditions

Threat of Flooding to Life and Property

11/94 1,100,000 Flooding Debris Accumulation Debris Removal Bridges, Culverts, and Abutments Damaged Bank Stabilization

Increased Threat of Flooding

Hazardous Driving Conditions

Newly Cut Channels

Increased Bank Erosion

Damaged Properties

07/94 19,800,000 Tropical Storm Alberto Dams Failed Not Stated

Rivers Rose

Floods Occurred

Roads/Culverts Washed Out Railroad Trestles/Bridges/Utilities Undermined

Water Covered 10,000 Square Miles

50,000 People Driven From Homes

Damage to Infrastructure and Agriculture

07/94 30,554 Flooding Earthen Dams and Spillways Scoured Debris Removal

Erosion Bank Stabilization

Threat to Life and Property Increased

Debris Accumulation



Table 2.5-4 Recent EWP Program Activities in Idaho

Location

1997 Idaho EWP Work Bingham, Bonneville, and Madison Counties

Boise National Forest - Valley,

Idaho, Washington, and Adams Counties

Adams, Boise, Gem, Idaho,

Latah, Nez Perce, Payette, Washington and Valley Counties

1996 Idaho EWP Work

Boise 8th Street Burn

Nez Perce County

Clearwater County

Latah County

Disaster Date

06/97

01/97

01/97

8/96

02/96

02/96

02/96

Total Federal $

607,232

359,181

564,000

5,662,254

765,937

380,340

402,577

Disaster Type

Flood

Flood

Flood

Fire

Flood

Flood

Flood


Erosion/Sediment

Streams Clogged

Increased Flood Threat

Threat to Life and Property

Access Roads Damaged

Utility Service to District Forest Offices Cut off Mass Movement of Uprooted Trees Filled Channels

New Channels Formed

Recreation Facilities Swept Downstream

Culverts/Ditches Plugged

Roads/Infrastructure Destabilized

Channel Capacity Limited by Debris and Sediment

Potential Threats to Life and Property

Homes/Businesses Destroyed

Loss of Vegetative Cover

Erosion Potential Increased

Sediment-Laden Waters May Increase

Debris Accumulation Potential

Increased Threat to Life and Property

Erosion/Sedimentation

Streams Clogged


Erosion and Sedimentation Increases

Streambank Degradation

Debris Accumulation

Dike and Levee Degradation

Out-of-Bank Damage Downstream

Erosion/Sediment

Streams Clogged



EWP Program Practices

Streambank Stabilization

Debris Removal

Revegetation

Drainage Projects

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal


Debris Removal

Dike Repair

Revegetation

Revegetation

Streambank Protection

Channel Flow Alteration

Debris Removal Grade Stabilization Structures


Debris Removal

Dike Repair

Revegetation

Revegetation


Debris Removal


Debris Removal

Dike Repair

Revegetation



Table 2.5-4 (Continued) Recent EWP Program Activities in Idaho

Location

1996 Idaho EWP Work

Lewis County

Benewah County

Bonner and Boundary

Kootenai County

Shoeshone County

1995 Idaho EWP Work

Boise National Forest

Boise, Elmore Counties

North Fork Boise River

1994 Idaho EWP Work

Boise County

Star Gulch Fire

1993 Idaho EWP Work

Elmore County

Foothills Fire

1992 Idaho EWP Work

Boise County

Dunnigan Creek Fire

Blaine County

Ro Fire

Disaster Date

Total Federal $

Disaster Type Watershed Impairments EWP Program Practices

02/96 96,720 Flood Streambank Degradation Bank Stabilization

Debris Accumulation in Channels Debris Removal


Increased Threat to Life and Property

02/96 84,300 Flood Channel Capacity/Stability Channel Reconstruction

Threat to Life and Property Streams

02/96 32,769 Flood Channel Capacity Debris Removal

Increased Flood Threat Dike Repair

Increased Erosion/Sedimentation Streambank Stabilization


02/96 97,390 Flood Streambank Erosion Streambank Stabilization

Increased Flood Threat Debris Removal

Threat to Life and Property Dike Construction

02/96 171,886 Flood Channel Capacity Debris Removal

Increased Flood Threat Streambank Stabilization

Increased Erosion/Sedimentation Dike Repair

Threat to Life and Property Revegetation

08/95 219,270 Flood Road and Utility Damage Debris Removal

Channel Capacity/Sediment Dams Streambank Stabilization

Culverts Plugged Seeding

Mass Movement Riparian Planting

Streambank Erosion

08/94 105,817 Flood Erosion/Sedimentation Erosion Control Structures

Streams Clogged Grade Stabilization

Increased Flood Threat Seeding

Riparian Planting

08/93 830,670 Flood Increased Erosion/Sedimentation Seeding



09/92 46,4318 Flood Increased Erosion/Sedimentation Seeding/Revegation

Increased Flood Threat Sediment Retention Structures


08/92 89,898 Fire Increased Erosion/Sedimentation Seeding/Revegation

Increased Flood Threat Sediment Retention Structures




Table 2.5-5 Recent EWP Program Activities in Iowa


Total Federal $

Disaster Type Watershed Impairments EWP Program Practices

1993 Iowa EWP Work

84 Counties 1993 31,900,000 Flood Sedimentation Debris Removal (136 Sites) (Great Flood of 1993) Erosion Bank Stabilization (455 Sites)

Damage to Levees Levee Repair (54 Sites)

Damage from Flooding Other Erosion and Sedimentation Repair (57 Sites)

Bridges/Culverts Destabilized

Roads/Properties/Drainage Ditches Damaged

Debris Accumulation



Table 2.5-6 Recent EWP Program Activities in Missouri


Total Federal $

Disaster Type Watershed Impairments

1996 Missouri EWP Work

statewide 1996 295,290 Flood Infrastructure Threatened

Levees Damaged

Ditches Damaged

Streams Blocked

Streambank Erosion


statewide 1995 18,294,154 Flood Infrastructure Threatened

Levees Damaged

Ditches Damaged

Streams Blocked

Streambank Erosion


statewide 1993 19,000,000 Flood Streambank erosion

Threats to bridges, culverts

Threats to water and sewer lines

Damage to levees and dams

Threat of property damage

Threat to public health

Debris in channels, culverts

Sedimentation

Threats to public lands

statewide 1993 30,240,917 Flood Infrastructure Threatened

Levees Damaged

Ditches Damaged

Streams Blocked

Streambank Erosion

EWP Practices

Not stated

Easements

Bank stabilization

Obstruction removal

Dams and dikes

Easements



Table 2.5-7 Recent EWP Program Activities in North Carolina


1996 North Carolina EWP Work

Polk, Yancey, Mitchell 1/13/96

Avery, Watauga, and

Caldwell County


Nantahala NF 10/5/95

Nantahala NF 4/1/95

Clay County 2/15/95

Cherokee County

Graham County


Graham County 3/15/90

Jackson County

Swain Conty 2/9/90


Watauga County 9/22/89

Ashe County

Union County 9/22/89

Total Federal$

1,176,778

11,253

13,876

356,941

39,104

48,400

210,000

387,500

Disaster Type

Heavy Rains

Landslide

Flood

Heavy Rains

Flood

Heavy Rains

Hurricane

Hurricane


Stream Blockage

Threat of Property Damage

Flooded Cropland

Stream Bank Erosion

Sediment Deposition


Threat of road damage

Threat of bridge damage

Stream Blockage and bank erosion


Stream bank erosion

Threat of fisheries damage

Stream Blockage Threat of property damage

Threat of utility damage


Stream bank erosion

Bank Erosion

Property Loss

Sedimentation

Bank Erosion

Property Loss

Health and Safetey Threat

Debris in River Channel

Stream Blockage

Threatened Bridges

Flooded Cropland



Streambank erosion

Stream Blockage Clearing

Threatened Bridges



Streambank erosion

EWP Practices

Bank Stabilization

Obstruction Removal

Revegetation

Revegetation

Obstruction removal

Bank Stabilization

Obstruction Removal

Bank Stabilization Revegetation

Obstruction removal

Bank stabilization

Revegetation

Bank Stabilization

Obstruction Removal

Revegetation

Bank stabilization

Obstruction removal

Bank stabilization

Obstruction removal



Table 2.5-8 Recent EWP Program Activities in Texas


Total Federal $ Disaster Type Watershed Impairments EWP Program

practices 1997 Texas EWP Program work

Bandera County 6/23/97 55,800 Floods Stream Crossings Endangered Not Stated Access To Subdivision Threatened

Donley County 4/24/97 58,000 Floods Sewer Treatment Plant Endangered

Levee Installed at Treatment Plant

Sewer Water Backing Up into Homes

1996 Texas EWP Program work

Red River County 7/29/96 26,700 Floods/Heavy Rains

Debris/Sediment Accumulation in Channel Debris Removal

Flooding of Homes in Minority Neighborhood


Collingsworth, Childress, Hall, 6/95 1,306,100 Floods Sewage Treatment Plant Flooded Diversion Use

Wheller, Foard, and Willbauger Water Quality Degraded

Counties Roads/Bridges Endangered Bank Stabilization

Collingsworth, Childress, Hall, 6/95 204,000 Floods County Roads and Bridges Endangered Bank Stabilization

Wheller, Foard, and Willbauger Sewage Treatment Plant Counties Threatened


Polk County 10/94 9,484 Floods Head Cut

Utilities Exposed Bank Stabilization

Road Crossings Threatened Debris Removal

Polk County 10/94 22,722 Floods Head Cut


Road Crossings Threatened Debris Removal

Trinity County 10/94 9,065 Floods Debris Jams Debris Removal

Bridges Endangered

Roads Endangered Access for 100 Landowners Threatened

Nacogdoches County 10/94 4,058 Floods Head Cut


Road Threatened Debris Removal

Rural Waterline Threatened

Tyler County 10/94 124,292 Floods Embankment Slope Failure Bank Stabilization Outlet Channel Structures Eroded Clearing

Utilities Exposed Debris Removal

Access Road Threatened

Emergency Access Prohibited



Table 2.5-8 (Continued) Recent EWP Program Activities in Texas Disaster

Date

San Jacinto 10/94 9,705 Floods Head Cut

Access Road Threatened

Milam and Williamson Counties 1/20/91 140,000 Floods Roads Endangered Debris and Sediment Accumulation

Comanche County 4/12/90 50,000 Floods Damaged

ANavasota, and Montgomery Counties

6/5/90 376,150 Floods Roads Threatened

Bridges Threatened

Homes/Churches/Cemeteries Threatened

Location Total Federal $ Disaster Type Watershed Impairments


Utilities Exposed

Outlet Structures Destabilized



County Roads and Bridges

ustin, San Jacinto, Newton,

EWP Program practices

Bank Stabilization

Bank Stabilization

Debris Removal


Bank Stabilization


Bank Stabilization



Table 2.5-9 Recent EWP Program Activities in Virginia

Location

1998 Virginia EWP Work

Allegheny, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties

1996 Virginia EWP Work Augusta County (George Washington and Jefferson National Forests)

15 Counties/ 2 Cities

Augusta, Grayson Counties (George Washington and Jefferson National Forests)

Disaster Date

Total Federal $


practices

01/98 71,968.4 Flood Stream Blockages Obstruction Removal


Revegetation

09/96 32,000 Hurricane Fran Log Debris/River Cobble in Channel Obstruction Removal

Forest Development Road threatened Channel Alteration

09/96 7,214,300.1 Hurricane Fran Threat to Life (1,019 People) Streambank Stabilization

Houses, Bridges, Business, Public and Private Slope Stabilization

Roads, Utilities, Agricultural Land Threatened

Debris in Streams Obstruction Removal

Streambanks Destabilized

Sediment Accumulation

Eroded Slopes/Land Revegetation

Flood Control Dams Damaged (13) Dams/Dikes Repaired

Stream Restoration Sites Damaged

01/96 17,000 Flood Debris in Channel Obstruction Removal

Roads Threatened Streambank Stabilization

Campground Endangered



THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


THE CURRENT EWP PROGRAMThe National EWP Manual documents NRCS policy governing the EWP Program; the...

Documents

Transcript of THE CURRENT EWP PROGRAMThe National EWP Manual documents NRCS policy governing the EWP Program; the...